Civil War history re-examined

Times Herald ^ | 13 August 2002 | JUDY BACA

[Husker24]

I have a feeling this is going to be a long thread.

[stainlessbanner]

Lee is a man who stands on his own. Any review of his personal writings and personal accounts with Lee reveal an upstanding gentleman bound by a sense of honor and duty.

Revisionist authors from PA who write books to smear his good name could not hold General Lee's knickers. He was more man than most of us could ever imagine.

God Bless General Robert E. Lee!

[jae471]

Robert E. Lee, was not the great military genius portrayed in the history books and that it was Lee, not his subordinates, who bore the responsibility for the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg.

While not wanting to get into a lengthy argument, it is often said the had Stonewall Jackson been at Gettysburg, the outcome of the war would have have been different.

Yes, Lee did do some stupid things during the Civil War, but you don't become a General by doing nothing. Does Gambone examine why Lee named commander of the CSA Army? Or what his record was prior the WBtS?

[sonofron]

i think this guy is just mad because the north didn't have a general lee, so he now wants to downplay him.

[shuckmaster]

Lee never won more than five or six major battles

What's the average number of major battles a general has to win before he's considered "great" these days?

[ClearCase_guy]

Lee never won more than five or six major battles.

Well, I believe George Washington won exactly one major battle (Yorktown). But Washington was undoubtably a great general. How many Northern Generals won more than 5 or 6 major battles? Grant, probably. Pretty sure nobody else did.

Lee's achievements were monumental. But revisionist historians need to tear down anyone on the "wrong side" of history.

[Restorer]

Robert E. Lee, was not the great military genius portrayed in the history books and that it was Lee, not his subordinates, who bore the responsibility for the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg.

I guess I didn't realize this was a particularly controversial position. Lee decided to try a frontal attack under Pickett rather than the flank attack advocated by Longstreet. Considering the nature of the ground and the superiority of Union artillery, this was undoubtedly a serious mistake. It was Lee's mistake.

Improvements in artillery and small arms were rapidly making mass charges obsolete. That Lee and a great many other generals in the WBTS did not understand this is not particularly surprising. It took most European generals till 1917 to thoroughly learn it.

Lee was a great man and a great general. But Gettysburg was not a stunning example of his brilliance.

[Restorer]

Washington was undoubtably a great general.

Only because his character and tenacity saved the cause of Independence. He was not particularly good either tactically or strategically.

Oddly enough, the greatest military genius on either side in that war was probably Benedict Arnold. And he was on both sides!

BA was in many ways the inverse of Washington. A truly great soldier and a man of no character.

[sonofron]

the reason why history remembers Lee and other generals on losing sides is because of the victories won by them despite a larger, better equiped foe. Hannibal is another example of a general who produced victories against overwhelming odds(the romans), but in the end lost the war.

[vetvetdoug]

..it is likely that no other town, North or South, with the same size population had as many general-sons..

B.S.; Holly Springs, Mississippi....seven....Featherston et al.

[SamKeck]

Robert E. Lee, was not the great military genius portrayed in the history books and that it was Lee, not his subordinates, who bore the responsibility for the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg.

What an absolute slur on General Lee. While it is true that the General in charge must take the reponsibilty for the loss of the battle, re Gettysburg one must consider the lack of full commuication between Lee and the Corps Commander on the Confederate right, Longstreet. Then too, what if the mercurical Stonewall had been in charge of the Confederate left on days one and two of Gettysburg to carry out Lee's directives instead of the lethargic Gen. Ewell? Methinks the battle might well have come out differently.

[FirstFlaBn]

I could really care less about the left flank or the right flank.

Not the best way to earn a reputation for insightful commentary on military tactics. In other words, he gives opinion in the form of biography. Interesting approach, but hardly worth taking seriously.

[arly]

Is it gambone or Hambone?.... only 5 or 6 major battle victories with a smaller force ?... hmm I wonder how many battles General Hambone has won!! Lee was a military genius and also a gentleman!

[exit82]

General Lee took responsibilty for the failure of Pickett's charge on the afternoon it occurred, as the very courageous Confederate participants came straggling back to the Confederate lines.

General Lee was a great leader of men anda great general, as he constantly was able to turn battlefield disadvantages to his advantage over Union generals time and time again. How many Union generals were gone through by the time Grant came on the scene? Lee was the only commander of the Army of Northern Virginia throughout the war.

The Civil War was fought was great and honorable emn. Their courage and heroism, though ordinary citizens, on both sides is still a source of amazement to me as I tour their battlefields. Where did this country get this kind of men?

[thulldud]

Winning battles isn't enough. Hannibal could win battles, but he failed to make strategic use of his victories. Other generals have been considered "losers" in history, but the outcome of their strategic maneuvering tells a different story: Nathanael Greene, for instance.

Think of baseball: base hits are nice, but hits don't win the game. In football, yardage gains are wonderful, but they only win when they reach the end zone. It's not uncommon to post better raw stats than your opponent and still lose the game.

[wardaddy]

Lee is admired by many (excluding our resident FReeper South-bashing contingent whom I'm sure will be here any second). He is admired primarily because he won a number of battles tactically on the field and a fair number of other strategic victories against a more powerful and well equipped foe. And he inspired his men. And he conducted himself with dignity in defeat. He was hardly flawless and I confess to belonging to the "he should have listened to Longstreet crowd". Actually, he should have taken the high ground at the first opportunity(including the evening of the first day's skirmishes even before all his forces arrived) and had Stuart reeled in for more prompt recon. My son and son to be are both great(X3) nephews of Gen. William Barksdale of my homestate who was killed on the low ground as you are all well aware. (Barksdale's sister Virginia was my wife's great great grandmother) Lee won most of his victories by choosing his own ground and choosing it well. That is a fairly consistent mark of all successful military leaders.

I have respect for Grant as well but from a different perspective of tactics. Grant was very very determined...something that separated him from all his predecessors. I am a big fan of Stonewall Jackson but Lee had some pretty fair generals in his stead. I'm not sure I would blame most of the Gettysburg defeat on Jackson's death. One could argue that the entire Gettysburg campaign was misguided. One could argue all of these tactics forever, in fact some do.

[tjg]

It's not a controversial position to anyone that's read anything about that battle in particular, or the War of Northern Agression in general.

Lee freely admitted at the time, and maintatained in later years it was a huge mistake. Longstreet was agast when Lee informed him of his plan and didn't want to participate.

A frontal attack, over open ground, uphill, in broad daylight, to the center of a superior force. It was nuts. Lee knew it, but his genius was knowing what unexpected actions he could get away with.

His genius took a vacation at Gettysburg. It happens.

[x]

This isn't exactly news. Lee's willingness to accept great casualties when he could ill afford them has been a subject of discussion for some time, as has the question of whether a different, less territorial strategy would have been better for his side. Also, D.S. Freeman included many mythical and unsubstantiated accounts in his biography of Lee. And those who huff about assaults on Lee's reputation ought to give a thought to what was done to Longstreet by Lee's own admirers.

But Lee was a classy guy who did show many virtues. And he was certainly a good military commander. While another hypothetical leader could have won the war for the Confederacy, most of the real ones wouldn't have made it last as long as Lee did. Lee's choice of Confederate command over his oath to the union and constitutution is something that makes it hard for some to take the "Marble Man" image.

[wardaddy]

In my view, the South lost the war (military commander-wise) via Bragg in the west. There is no doubt the North won due to Grant both in the west and in the VA/PA/MD theater.